To make explicit the flip side that you hint at here: How many people with sidewalks in front of their homes would be happy if the government wanted to rip them out?

by TheGreenMiles on Aug 3, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

I live within 1/3 of a mile from Forest Glen Metro station and many of the blocks in my neighborhood have no sidewalks, including those closest to the station. I walk to work in the street. However, because it's a single-family home neighborhood, it's a pretty normal thing. There are more walkers than drivers.

by Eric on Aug 3, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

I've noticed that as well. It really bothers me. I hate walking in the road.

by Matt Glazewski on Aug 3, 2010 1:52 pm • link • report

Why should Arlington taxpayers have to pay for your lack of research? You moved there 2 months ago and you will be gone in how many months/years? It's not their fault that you didn't move to an area with a paved pedestrian trail to the metro.

Captcha: the cars -- no joke.

by Steve on Aug 3, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report

I don't live in Arlington, but I have witnessed many residential blocks near the places I frequent that have had streets upgraded with sidewalks. I think that simply adding a sidewalk is not that easy a process, so it looks like it gets done in conjunction with other street and utility upgrades. It's quite a disruptive construction process, and the entire street is torn up and reconstructed, so I can understand why some people would be against it.

by spookiness on Aug 3, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report

I live in Silver Spring, and they were recently doing work on E-W highway side walk. The sign told you to cross to the other side: where there is no sidewalk, not much room for any walking, and speeding cars.

by SJE on Aug 3, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

Depending on the speed limit, traffic volume and width of the roadway, many streets do not need sidewalks in order for pedestrians to be safe. Like lots of the included photos. Not every street needs a sidewalk for a neighborhood to be walkable.

by crin on Aug 3, 2010 2:20 pm • link • report

Wow, anti-sidewalk folks have renamed them "paved pedestrian trails"? Apparently that just happened.

by TheGreenMiles on Aug 3, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

Arlington County is always on the lookout for new ways to spend taxpayer dollars. Send this article to them and I'm sure they'll get right on it.

by Parah Salin on Aug 3, 2010 2:34 pm • link • report

@Parah Salin

While they are at it maybe they'll put in 8 foot wide bike lanes on each side of the road and take away one side of parking -- and a traffic lane for good measure.

by GM342 on Aug 3, 2010 2:40 pm • link • report

You don't have to be "anti-sidewalk" to believe that not every road needs a couple of concrete foothpaths along beside it to be ped friendly. As GGW often says, these publicly owned rights-of-way (aka, "roads") are for everyone, not just cars. These low-speed neighborhood streets are perfectly safe for walking and running. I spend a lot of time running on Arlington streets, and many places there's simply no need for the expense and hassle of installing sidewalks.

by David on Aug 3, 2010 2:41 pm • link • report

People will resist any change at all unless the benefits are very clear and the drawbacks are not. I worked for a medium-sized suburb that needed to rebuild the fire station to accommodate new fire apparatus. (The fire station was built when the fire department used horses.) We decided to use that opportunity to relocate the fire station to city-owned property in the center of town to reduce response times. First the residents near the new site screamed bloody murder, then the residents near the existing site demanded the station stay there. Twelve years, and ten expensive consultant studies later (all supporting the central site), the new fire station opened in the middle of town. Since then one guy complains every time the trucks go down his street, but we found the trucks went past his house less frequently than before the move. Nobody at the old site complained at all.

by Stanton Park on Aug 3, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report

@ Rob: cynical answer first: If you were looking for walkability, why didn't you notice the absense of side-walks? And if you didn't care, then why are you writing about this?

Serious answer: Side-walks are important. Especially at night, when visibility is low. Adults tend to walk safely on the side of a road and can interact properly with cars. This is a lot harder for children, let alone pets, specifically dogs. It is also annoying to have to walk around parked cars, again, especially at night.

These roads have clearly not been designed with pedestrians in mind. They are not woonerven. And that is objectionable, especially in a pedestrian friendly county like Arlington.

Now, does ADOT need to run out and start slapping in side-walks immediately? Probably not. However, they could consider the missing side-walks when repaving roads.

by Jasper on Aug 3, 2010 3:08 pm • link • report

I lived a few blocks from the metro in Ballston for two years. I'm pretty sure the red brick house in the bottom right picture of this article is the actual house I lived in. It didn't even occur to me that there was no sidewalk until I read this article. Admittedly, there is a sidewalk on the other side of the street, but there was so little traffic that walking in the street was never an issue.

by b on Aug 3, 2010 3:28 pm • link • report

@Jasper, et al: The answer to the cynical response is that my options at the time were limited; moving cross-country on short notice doesnÂ’t make extensive apartment-hunting easy. There are two primary reasons I am surprised that the neighborhood is missing sidewalks: 1) Arlington is nationally known for its walkability and 2) itÂ’s within such close proximity of Metro (although I realize Metro came along after the fact). I do consider sidewalks very valuable, and itÂ’s likely that in the long-run IÂ’ll find myself in a neighborhood that has more of them.

by Rob Pitingolo on Aug 3, 2010 3:30 pm • link • report

It is annoying that there aren't any sidewalks in some of these areas, but I echo the point that some others make about the vehicular traffic fairly light, alleviating things. I think Arlington could target some areas for study, but it is further down on the list IMO. There are certain areas where the road conditions are crappy with potholes and whatnot AND no sidewalk. There are also others that aren't quiet, low-density residential neighborhoods like those pictured, but ones that are evolving into medium density.

by Vik on Aug 3, 2010 3:37 pm • link • report

Housing FAIL on your part. End of story.

by Janet on Aug 3, 2010 3:39 pm • link • report

@David

How safe are they for walking and running when the streets are 1/2 their normal width, there's two feet of snow on either side, and the roads are covered in ice?

by Thrillhouse on Aug 3, 2010 3:44 pm • link • report

The personal tone of some criticism of Rob is inappropriate and I won't have it. Every time someone seems to mention their own decision process in a post some people jump on them for every perceived decision. Stop it.

I've deleted a comment by Janet about this and will delete any other comments that simply criticize Rob without any useful contributions to the discussion about the sidewalks.

I'm trying to be on vacation, people. Stop being jerks.

by David Alpert on Aug 3, 2010 3:55 pm • link • report

Maybe it's just me, but I always considered whether you have a sidewalk, and how well it is maintained, one of the subtle status signals of how well-off a municipality is.

by tom veil on Aug 3, 2010 4:01 pm • link • report

We are trying to get sidewalks on a heavily used street going towards the VA Square metro in our neighborhood and were told that it will take at least 5 years for the county to do anything despite neighborhood support. My fiancée has almost been hit by cars several times due to parked cars forcing her to walk practically in the middle of the street. What doesn't make sense is in our neighborhood how arbitrary it seems that some streets have sidewalks and some don't.

by rob on Aug 3, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report

We moved to an Arlington street near Clarendon that lacked a sidewalk. We got together with several other neighbors who like us had small children and began an effort to get sidewalks installed. This began when my oldest son was about 4 years old. It took many years of effort and lobbying neighbors who didn't want new sidewalks to get the street redone. In the end, the sidewalks were finally installed the year my son turned 13! A few of the neighbors refused to go along with the plan so there are a couple of spots that don't have sidewalks. Believe me, it is not easy to get everyone to agree to sidewalks!! Probably the only way to do it is to require them when new buildings and streets are put in. If you try to add them later it's not easy!!!

by Kathy on Aug 3, 2010 4:28 pm • link • report

For sidewalks to be built, a petition can be circulated among the neighbors. If the majority wants sidewalks, eventually they will be installed. I think the request becomes part of the neighborhood conservation program, so you're basically on a waiting list. But it is a long process, because there is limited amount of tax money to go around for these projects, contrary to what many people believe.

by Tony on Aug 3, 2010 4:37 pm • link • report

Kathy's comment is so true. My wife led a seven year effort to get sidewalks on our street. It was very difficult and we still have a missing segment because one family had owned their land since the early 1900's and their property line extended to the middle of the street. The county did not have any right of way on that property but they tried to negotiate with the owners to get the right to build. The negotiations failed and the county decided to make completion of that segment a requirement for future development after the property is sold and laws granting the county right of way become applicable.

by S Arlington Sean on Aug 3, 2010 6:25 pm • link • report

In places with little vehicle traffic, this strikes me as right up there with people who won't move to the right on Metro escalators. Northeasterners and Midwesterners are used to sidewalks. In the South, it's not unusual for people to walk in the street even where there is a sidewalk. In my old neighborhood in Atlanta this was one of the many ironies. Another was that we had sidewalks in a place that's known for not having them. NoVA has changed but has culturally pretty southern roots. Despite MoCo's Tiffany rep, much of it was built on the cheap, and Maryland has plenty of Southern heritage.

by Rich on Aug 3, 2010 7:17 pm • link • report

@S Arlington Sean: one family had owned their land since the early 1900's and their property line extended to the middle of the street

Two words: Eminent domain. This is exactly what it's for.

Counties should not be weasels and try to negociate. They should give owners one polite and friendly bid for the ground, and after they go to court immediately. There is no excuse for crap like that.

by Jasper on Aug 3, 2010 9:18 pm • link • report

The one issue I've not seen discussed here yet, is:
Impervious surface - adding more hard scape is not the environmental thing to do.

In addition I believe you've mis-characterized the "percieved" loss of yard - looking at it another way - what you propose to do is move my house 5-10 feet closer to the public right of way.

It's over simplifying the issue - to take development from over 75 years ago and try and force fit more modern design ideas into the development layout, that's just not built to accomodate it, while ignoring the negatives.

by Suburban Not Urban on Aug 4, 2010 2:19 am • link • report

There are many residential streets in Arlington that lack sidewalks but in most cases they are, in my opinion, still pedestrian friendly. In terms of aesthetics some neighborhoods in the County look better with them and others look better without them. I agree that it is annoying that in many areas the sidewalks are discontinuous, especially in neighborhoods like Lyon Park, whose first sidewalks were in fact installed in the early 1900s.

by JP on Aug 4, 2010 2:29 am • link • report

I agree that having sidewalks is *more* pedestrian friendly than not having them, but if the streets are narrow enough so that cars have no choice but to go slow, then the street can still be pedestrian friendly.

Examples of the latter are abundant in Ashton Heights (Va. Square). But it has a lot of cut-through traffic. Even more safe are the neighborhoods that abut I-66, so that there really is no car traffic other than from people in the neighborhood; you could walk in the middle of those most of the time and not feel imperiled.

I'm generally in favor of sidewalks; in fact, I repeatedly urged the County to put them in on a nearby street whose residents had repeatedly asked for them, to no avail. They didn't even have curbs! (Yet the County still found the money to put in those expensive and ridiculous traffic-calming circles--which in Cherrydale did nothing to slow the cars and in fact made the intersections nearly blind and forced drivers closer to pedestrians.)

But back to topic: Sidewalks are a good thing in general. But let's be fair: There is some lifestyle cost to the homeowner. People who leave their dog crap. The duty to shovel the sidewalk when it snows. Slightly more noise from the foot traffic.

The real issue I think is when you have them on one side but not the other. I used to live on just such a street. It is unfair to arbitrarily put all the burdens of a generally beneficial public easement onto one group of residents.

What's also crazy is that in Arlington, the McMansions that go up have to put in sidewalks--even when there are no other sidewalks at all. But I hate McMansions, so I'm all for making them as onerous and expensive to build as possible.

I think it should be totally up to the homeowners. If they ask for sidewalks, they should get them. I realize that others nearby would use them, but the homeowners have the most invested and the most to lose. Consent of the governed, home rule. To leave it to those outside the neighborhood is lifestyle colonialism.

by JB on Aug 4, 2010 9:14 am • link • report

While you're at it installing sidewalks, talk to Arlington about burying the power lines - these beautiful neighborhoods are eye sores with the amount of crap strung to each house. We're an old county with so many mature trees that you are scalping beautiful trees to make way for the lines, and bad weather is constantly causing downed power lines.

by WBR @ Quincy Park North on Aug 4, 2010 9:17 am • link • report

As an Arlington resident in neighborhood where this issue comes up frequently, I agree that not all streets would benefit equally from sidewalks.

My block doesn't have sidewalks but I'm not sure it would benefit greatly. Although we have some cut-through traffic, traffic is mostly pretty light and we use the street, not just for walking but for bike-riding, street hockey, and chatting with neighbors. And installing sidewalks would almost certainly mean the loss of mature trees which are a public good of their own. So I'm not sure I see a tremendous net benefit from installing sidewalks.

Other streets have much clearer need for sidewalks -- we can tell because they're the ones that we (and everyone else we know) routinely avoid on our walks.

And while I don't exactly blame the County for avoiding a fight with homeowners, I do think this is part of a pattern in which the County abdicates leadership in the name of consensus building.

by Ted on Aug 4, 2010 9:18 am • link • report

WBR: Yes, yes, yes! That would be fantastic. But I'm sure it would cost gazillions of dollars.

by JB on Aug 4, 2010 9:19 am • link • report

Rob's point is a good one - that "walkability" is not just about the distance to services, but the quality of the walk. No sidewalks, or bad sidewalks, should factor in.

Another example: the stretch of Wilson Blvd between Rosslyn and Courthouse. The sidewalk in many stretches is so narrow that people have to single-file and move into the grass to let oncoming pedestrians pass. It's especially bad in the sections heavy with parking meters. My 5 year old actually walked INTO a parking meter last year trying to navigate that narrow sidewalk, even had to see a doctor for the bruising to her head.

Luckily there is new development slated for the opposite side of Wilson. Here's hoping that wider sidewalks are required.

So to Rob's point - much of Arlington is walkable at face value. But easily walked? Not always.

by ESA on Aug 4, 2010 9:39 am • link • report

@ JB: it would cost gazillions of dollars

So what? There is no such thing as a free lunch. everything costs money. The question is whether the cost is justified by the benefits. It'd also be a nice stimulus project, with very good benefits.

Has anybody ever compared the cost of power outages to the cost of burying the lines?

The costs of outages are significant. Power companies must struggle and pay high wages to their round-the-clock crews, often borrowed at high rates from neighboring utilities. Businesses loose money because they can't work. Employees loose money because they can not work. Citizens loose money because they maintain and run dangerous generators. Citizens loose money because they have to take off because the kids can't go to school. And then there's the lost content of fridges and freezers - not only in private homes, but also in supermarkets, restaurants and bars.

Furthermore, it is not necessary to do it all at once. Power companies could be required to start burying after outages, and wherever they to significant maintenance.

And where lines are buried, power companies will not have to spend money anymore on pruning trees near the lines.

by Jasper on Aug 4, 2010 9:45 am • link • report

The Arlington County Transportation Master Plan: Pedestrian Element can be found on this page:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/EnvironmentalServices/dot/planning/mplan/mtp/MTP_Draft.aspx

by Penny Everline on Aug 4, 2010 10:27 am • link • report

A lack of sidewalks is a deal-breaker for me. Give me the nicest digs in the nicest neighborhood with the nicest amenities but if there aren't sidewalks, no dice. As a parent, this is a no-brainer.

A pet peeve is people who walk in the street when there is a sidewalk right there that someone went to the trouble to make for them. I understand a few exceptions, but in general, why can't pedestrians just use the dadgum sidewalk?

by Viktor on Aug 4, 2010 10:41 am • link • report

Has anybody ever compared the cost of power outages to the cost of burying the lines?

Coincidentally, yes. In short, it's not worth it.

Because wires don't last forever, it also makes maintenance difficult and expensive. In 2006, the wires in Queens, NY started melting, and wrecked havoc on the city for about a month.

by andrew on Aug 4, 2010 10:47 am • link • report

I used to be a big proponent of burying utility lines everwhere. Especially in dense, historic downtowns, a tangle of power, phone, and cable lines really takes away from the aesthetic quality of a town, plus the aforementioned mangling of trees, or complete lack thereof.

Then one day as I was riding through some town with an electrician friend and mentioned this, he told me how expensive it would be. The main cost isn't burying the mains down the center of the street. It's burying the feeder to every single house and business. It's changing the power input location for each site from a couple of stories in the air to several feet underground - without cutting off power to any one location for more than a couple of minutes. It's building underground vaults for the transformers that were on poles.

Of course, it's much easier to bury lines in new construction than to retrofit. It is possible, it's just expensive, and the denser an area, the more expensive it is. The only time that it really makes sense is when a street is being completely rebuilt - new curbs, sidewalks, storm drains, etc. I've seen this done only twice, but the results are pretty great.

by kinverson on Aug 4, 2010 11:54 am • link • report

Since the 1980s, when Arlington County abandoned the practice of assessing adjacent property owners to pay for the construction of new sidewalks in front of their homes, Arlington has been committed to making the County a great place for walking. We’ve made tremendous progress since then. New public sidewalks are incorporated as a matter of course into every new, private, high-density development project along the Blue and Orange metro lines, at no cost to taxpayers. Arlington’s 2008 Master Transportation Plan includes a number of far reaching policies aimed at completing and improving the sidewalk network throughout the county. Policy #1 states that Arlington County will “Complete the walkway network with appropriately lit, ADA-accessible sidewalks along both sides of arterial streets and at least one side of neighborhood streets” and “plan for well-defined exceptions where sidewalks are expected to be omitted.” New sidewalk construction and needed upgrades are incorporated into all County facilities and street improvement projects.
Most County-initiated sidewalk construction is done under two programs: Neighborhood Conservation, our larger program, builds about a mile and a half of new sidewalks per year. The vast majority of these are in the residential neighborhoods. All NC project ideas are generated by residents themselves and are vetted through its citizen advisory committee. The NCAC selects projects for funding based on a petitioning process that requires at least 60% approval by adjoining homeownersÂ’ to move forward.
The WALKArlington program focuses largely on improvements along arterial roads and areas outside of the neighborhoods. Staff select these projects, based on the severity of the hazards and potential public benefit of each one. The WALKArlington program also supports the County's Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC). We encourage residents to use the PAC as a sounding board for their concerns and as a means of participating in decisions that affect what turns out to be the largest amount of public space in our community.

by David Goodman on Aug 4, 2010 2:00 pm • link • report

Arlington has some examples of neighborhoods where they paid to have sidewalks constructed. I am most familiar with the project on 21st Rd N between Lee Highway and N Stafford St.

The construction eliminated parking on one side of the street, cut into private property so that several driveways were no longer long enough to fit a full sized vehicle, and stopped at N Stafford St where there continues to be no sidewalks and barely enough space to drive, nonetheless walk safely, on the narrow street.

The project had to have been at huge expense given the structural barrier work required to cut into the steep slope of the landscape. People still walk in the street, so the only noticeable difference is the redistribution of parked cars from 21st Rd N to Lee Highway. Building sideways along narrow streets can be trickier than it sounds.

by OddNumber on Aug 4, 2010 2:32 pm • link • report

Once upon a time cars parked in the back of houses or in driveways so as not to spoil the aesthetics of nice lawns right up to the roadway. This setup did not become pedestrian hostile till people demanded on-street parking and the population of cars increasing twice the rate of the population.

I will also note that locally a collector street that had no sidewalks put in curb lanes. And instantly joggers, Mom's with strollers and some cyclists took advantage of the increase space for something other then motorized travel.

So I will assert that where there is resistance to putting in sidewalks curb lanes might be considered.

As far as impervious surfaces goes, I will remind the group the problem is not with the surface but what is done with the runoff. As long as the water runs off to the surrounding lawns the impact is negligible. And those who are concerned about the issue, please, please put your energy into road and parking lot designs. Sidewalks and bikeways should not be held to a higher standard then over car accommodations which make up 99% of the problem.

by Barry Childress on Aug 4, 2010 5:26 pm • link • report

I know I'm late but the snow-clearing issue is not trivial. Put in sidewalks then fine homeowners when they don't clear the snow within 24 hours. That's a real good reason to fight a sidewalk. Perhaps county snow removal, even if this adds $5 to an annual tax bill, would reduce some of the resistance.

by Sasha on Aug 6, 2010 3:25 pm • link • report

Snow clearing may not be trivial for some (especially for those who are physically handicapped), but the extent of snow we get here hardly makes this a major argument against improving neighborhood walkability (if this were Pennsylvania that might be another story). Certaintly this year's snow was an extreme case. The length of sidewalk needing clearing is usually manageable (and that's what neighborhood youth who need money are for!)

by Tmichaels on Aug 6, 2010 4:27 pm • link • report

Rob, once again, another good point. Here's my two cents. I live on a residential street that minus having actual sidewalks, respects people that play basketball and walk up and down the street. The asphalt is wide enough so we can all fit in there at the same time and people in cars slow down. However, I do understand your point on larger secondary roads, like a Wilson Blvd. We have a number of these where I am and they only have the curb lanes, no where near enough to hold people. However, we did just pass some sustainability measures last week, so we may be getting the balance back right with our pedestrian, bike and car traffic soon.

by Kristen on Aug 7, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report

Excellent post Rob and thank you for pointing out something that I have noticed is prevalent in many US cities and is not the case in many other parts of the World.

This shows Americans' over-reliance on the automobile.

I lived in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil growing up (for 12 years). I can't think of 1 street in Rio that did not have a sidewalk, not just in the city, but also in the near by suburbs.

The same is true of most major European cities.

I am baffled by the lack of pedestrian friendly areas in Northern Virginia, and it only gets worse the further West you go.

I've been living in Arlington (Crthouse and then Clarendon area) now for 12 years. Most of the time I've been pretty happy with the "walkability" of my neighborhood, which is one of the main reasons I've stayed an Arlington resident.

But it is true that many side streets that cut through major arteries and are less than 1 mile from Metro are lacking adequate pedestrian walkways/sidewalks, heck even a small single file brickway would be acceptable.

And yes, while building an entire huge sidewalk is expensive/difficult after the fact, I think alternatives like brick or cement smaller walkways are perfectly acceptable as long as there is at least a single file passageway for a person, so they don't have to walk in the middle of the road.

Now, don't even get me started on the lack of adequate lighting in NOVA. It seems the common thought is.."if the car headlights aren't lighting it--then it doesn't need light!"

Which leaves pedestrians not only walking in the middle of the street, but also, often, in pitch darkness.

My Mother fell walking on Highland street in 2001, and broke her ankle and finger, thanks to what?--lack of good street lighting on a major street.

by Stefan Sittig on Aug 10, 2010 3:58 pm • link • report

To address the previous post, I kind of liked Arlington's dark streets, when I was a kid walking home alone. Facetiousness aside, Arlington's new street lights are spaced too closely together and streets with these lights are in fact way too bright at night. There has too be a good balance between rustic darkness and lighting overkill.

In addition to Rio, et al., I'll add Los Angeles as a city where virtually every street has a sidewalk. Even in hilly LA neighborhoods like Silverlake and Echo Park, some streets/sidewalks have a grade approaching 35%. In fact, a determined individual could walk roughly 60+ miles inland from Santa Monica/Venice Beach all the way to San Bernardino or south and east to the San Diego County line--all on sidewalks.

by JP on Aug 10, 2010 8:00 pm • link • report

As some commentators have mentioned, sidewalks are needed not only for able-bodied adults but also by those in wheelchairs, children and babies in stroller. I would be terrified to walk my 9 mo old in the street (which I've had to do on some of the smaller sidewalks interrupted by utility poles or parking meters on parts of Fairfax and Wilson). Drivers routinely go above the speed limit, and many aren't used to pedestrians crossing, let alone walking in the street. It's a danger to have to walk on the street in many areas.

On the aesthetic point, I've always thought neighborhoods without sidewalks look kind of hillbilly like, but maybe it's a southern thing.

by GrandArch on Aug 19, 2010 5:10 pm • link • report